No no, you're right. I mean, obviously since Manning is better than Favre this year he's having a worse year. That's just common sense. Wait, what?

Favre > Manning this year. Look at team wins. Look at rating. Look at TDs thrown. Look at yards. Look at completion %. Look at ints. Guess who wins every single relevant QB stat? Most by a wide margin... it's Favre.

OH, by the way.. Manning also has one of the best RBs this year on his team so people can't sit back and tee off on his passing game. Favre.. uh.. yeah, not so much.

So yeah. Favre >>> Manning this year. It's not even a debate, there is no arguement to what I just said.

Do you lack reading comprehension skills?

It's very simple and I'll say it again in bold letters since you clearly missed it the first time.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAVING A BETTER YEAR AND BEING A BETTER PLAYER

Favre is having a better year (so far), Manning is the better player. Is Trent Cole a better player than Julius Peppers?

And Joseph Adaii is personally nothing special in my eyes. The fact is that Manning makes his runningbacks. He scares the secondary 10 yards off the ball. Edge has been half the man he was since he went to Arizona.

You ask if I lack reading comprehension skills... in return, I ask if you lack COMMON SENSE.

You admit Favre is having a better year. GUESS WHAT? That means, RIGHT NOW, he is the better player. Better year = better player.

It's like one of the idiotic statements that team A didn't actually win, team B threw it away. What? Huh?

Pen and paper doesn't lie. The stats favor Favre.. and if you try to argue past the stats, well, Manning has been in a far superior situation to succeed. But he hasn't. Favre has.

Manning has been mediocre this year.. Favre has been amazing. Anyone who would rather have Manning, this year, over Favre doesn't know football. Period.

Maybe next year Manning will be better than Favre, who knows, but this year it isn't close.

If I had to play tomorrow, I would take Julius Peppers over Trent Cole. When you have a sample of multiple years, and you use 9 games, then you are simply trying to construct an argument to be a homer.

"Maybe next year Manning will be better than Favre, who knows, but this year it isn't close".

And actually, the Bears game is a good example. The Bears have played the Packers one time this year, and the Bears won. Therefore the Bears are a better team. Anyone that says otherwise lacks common sense.

And actually, the Bears game is a good example. The Bears have played the Packers one time this year, and the Bears won. Therefore the Bears are a better team. Anyone that says otherwise lacks common sense.

But the Packers over the course of the last 10 games are 0-1 when playing the Bears

OK? I'm talking about evaluating a player's performance this year. This year Favre is the 2nd best QB in the league. The next game he plays, there's no reason to think he won't continue to outperform Manning and Romo.

Ok, so you would agree that 10 games is a better way to judge a player or a team than 1? Good. Someone with a brain.

Therefore...if you had a sample of say 64 games, as opposed to 10, that would be a better way to judge who was a better player too? Granted you can make your sample size too large, but I don't think 3-4 seasons constitutes that by any means. Maybe that's too much to come to terms with since it doesn't make Brett Favre the greatest thing since sliced bread though.

Ok, so you would agree that 10 games is a better way to judge a player or a team than 1? Good. Someone with a brain.

Therefore...if you had a sample of say 64 games, as opposed to 10, that would be a better way to judge who was a better player too? Granted you can make your sample size too large, but I don't think 3-4 seasons constitutes that by any means. Maybe that's too much to come to terms with since it doesn't make Brett Favre the greatest thing since sliced bread though.

More recent is generally a better way to judge players. Maybe you take Manning for next season, but I don't see how you take him for a game tommorow.

Ok then most recently the Bears beat the Packers. Therefore the Bears are more likely to beat the Packers the next time they play.

Why are you talking about teams when I'm talking about players? The Bears have played the Packers ONCE this season. Brett Favre and Peyton Manning have played 10 games each. There is a lot more to judge them on.

You're right, there is a lot more to judge them on, a lot more than 10 games.

Whatever..it's a pointless argument, it just amazes me that anyone, even Packers fans, would say that Favre is a better quarterback than Manning.

At this point in time Manning is better than Favre, there is no contest. Over the course of their careers? It is a tossup, Favre never had great recievers or RB like Manning has had.

Although based on their play this year, if I was choosing who I want for a stretch run, I am taking Favre. He is playing MUCH BETTER than Manning, even if Manning is a better player RIGHT NOW, and momentum is very important.

__________________
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Hunter S. Thompson